Lawrence Jun Zhang
National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, SingaporeAlthoughstudiesonL2learningstrategiesareamajorstrandofsecond-languageresearch,recentresearchinteresthasfocussedonlanguagelearners’metacognitiveknowledgeorawarenessofstrategies.PreviousresearchhasshedimportantlightontheameliorationinL2educationalpractices,butlittleresearchisfocusedonEFLlearn-ersininput-poorenvironments.Thispaperreportsonastudyof10ChineseEFLread-ers’metacognitiveknowledgeofstrategiesinlearningtoreadEFLinthePeople’sRepublicofChina(PRC),atypicalacquisition-poorenvironment.TheEFLreaders’metacognitiveknowledgeofstrategieswasanalysedandinterpretedfromabroadmetacognitiveperspectivewithinFlavell’smodel(1987),whichhasbeenadoptedinL2studiesbyresearcherssuchasWenden(1991;1998)andGoh(1998)toanalyselearners’strategiesortheirmetacognitiveknowledgeoflanguagelearning.EFLreaders’knowl-edgeofreadingstrategieswasexaminedthroughanalysingthementalisticdata(Cohen,1996)obtainedthroughretrospectiveinterviews.ThestudyfoundthatthePRCEFLreaders’metacognitiveknowledgeofreadingstrategieshadcloselinkstotheirEFLproficiency.TheresultssuggestthattheavailablestudiesonPRCEFLreadershavenotadequatelyaddressedtheissue.Implicationsforlearnertrainingandrecommenda-tions for further research are also explored.
Introduction
Itiscomfortingtoseethatresearchintolanguage-learningstrategieshasfocusedonidentifyingsuccessfulandunsuccessfulstrategiesforlanguageimprovementbothintheWest(Cohen,1996;Oxford,1996;Vann&Abraham,1990;Wenden&Rubin,1987)andinthePeople’sRepublicofChina(PRC)(Gu&Johnson,1996;Wen&Johnson,1997),buttheavailableresearchintoPRCEFLlearnersisdisproportionatewiththecountry’sforeign-languageneeds.Readinghasnotbeengivensufficientattention,particularlywithregardtoL2readers’metacognitiveknowledgeofhowtheyconceptualisetheirreadingprocessesformeaning-making.Ifstrategiesareunderstoodaslearners’consciouseffortstowardslanguageimprovementorcomprehension(Bialystok&Ryan,1985;McLeod&McLaughlin,1986;Oxford,1996),thenthisneglectneedstobeaddressedinorderthatL2readers’successfulandeffectivereadingstrategiescan be elicited and imparted to less successful readers.
BiggsandWatkins(1996)arguethatChineselearnersareveryoftensubjectedtoassertionswhicharenotvalidatedbyempiricaldata.ItispreciselybecausethePRCwasoutofboundstoWesternersforquitesometimethatempiricalresearchintoEFLlearnersinsuchaninput-poorcontextisparticularlysparse.Nonethe-less,giventhatsocietiesaredifferentfromoneanotherintheamountofthetargetlanguageinputandintheliteracytraditionsthatmovereaderstowardsexcel-0965-8416/01/04 0268-21 $20.00/0LANGUAGE AWARENESS
© 2001 L.J. ZhangVol. 10, No. 4, 2001
268
Awareness in Reading269
lence(Hvitfeldt,1986;Parry,1996),learners’metacognitiveknowledgeoftheirownL2readingcomprehensionprocessesinthesesocietiesshouldbeviewedinrelationtotheselatentlearnerandnon-learnervariables.AsAbrahamandVann(1996:2)alsomaintain,‘invalidation,wemustlooknotonlyatthemethodofcollectingdata,butalso,andmoreimportantly,athowthedataareinterpreted,thatis,whatinferencesaredrawnfromtheresultsandhowtheseinferencesarejustified,andwhatusescanlegitimatelybemadeoftheseinterpretations’.There-fore,thisstudytookanativisedapproachandfocusedonexploringtheselearn-ers’metacognitiveknowledgeofstrategyuseinlearningtoreadEFL.Itwasexpectedthatwhentheirmetacognitiveknowledgewasuncovered,theycouldbeencouragedtousethisknowledgewithconfidencetoimprovetheirreadingefficiencyinrealreadingsituations(e.g.Lehtonen,2000).Inthefollowingsections,Iwill,bywayofbrieflyreviewingtherelevantstudies,presenttheback-ground against which this study was undertaken.L2 learners’ metacognitive knowledge of strategies
Schmidt(1993)pointedoutthatthebodyofresearchintolearningstrategiesisanotherwayofunderstandinglanguagelearners’consciousawarenessaboutlanguagelearning.Piper’s(1994)researchshowedthatevenasstudentsofmodernlanguages,hersubjectspossessedamodeloflanguageandstrategiesforlearning,butbothweresignificantlylimited.Thissuggeststhatawell-structuredenvironment,pedagogicalsupport,sufficienttimeandopportunityshouldbeprovidedforstudentstodevelopthestrategiesnecessaryformeaningfullearn-ing.Nevertheless,areviewoftheliteratureshowsthatalthoughlanguage-learningstrategyresearchhasproducedsufficientevidencetoinformlanguageteachingandlearningpractices(e.g.O’Malley&Chamot,1990;Oxford,1996;Wenden&Rubin,1987),reportsdirectlyaddressingPRCEFLlearners’readingstrategiesareinsufficient(cf.Field,1985;Kohn,1992;Parry,1996).
Field(1985)reportedthatPRCEFLreaderswerenotabletousetheirconcep-tualabilitiestothefullestpotential,eventhoughtheywereadvancedreadersinthetargetlanguage.Whatshemeantwas,becauseofthedifficultyintransferofreadingskillsfromL1toL2andsocioculturalinterference,theywereunabletousethemoreabstractprocessstrategies(e.g.guessingcontextualmeaning)toattain‘fluentlevelsofreadingskill’(p.172).Similarly,Kohn(1992)statedPRCEFLreaders’readingstrategies,or‘literacystrategies’inhiswords,weregreatlydifferentfromthoseoftheirAmericancounterparts.Accordingtohisobserva-tion,Americanreaderstendedtoreadrapidly,whilePRCreaderstendedtoreadslowly.Unfortunately,thesetworeportsonlyreflectedthewriters’perceptionsofhowtheirPRCstudentsreadinEFL,astheydidnotasktheirstudentshowtheythemselvesconceptualisedtheirknowledgeoforactualuseofreadingstrat-egies.Parry’s(1996)analysesof25PRCtrainee-teachers’writtenjournalentriessuggestedthathersubjects’strongertendencytouse‘bottom-up’strategiesthan‘top-down’strategieswascloselylinkedtotheirL1literacytraditionandtheirunderstanding of how reading should proceed.
Carrell(19)conductedastudyofESLreadersintheUSA,whoseresultsshowedthattherewassomedifferencebetweenstrategyperceptionsassociatedwithgoodL1readersandthoseassociatedwithgoodL2readers.Shepointedout
270Language Awareness
that‘thesemetacognitiveresultsaretobetakenassuggestiveratherthandefini-tive’(19:128).Nonetheless,herdatashowedaconsistentdifferenceaccordingtoL2proficiencylevel,withlow-proficiencyreaderstendingtoreportmoretext-bound,localstrategiesthanhigher-proficiencyreaders.ThissuggeststhatL2 proficiency could intercept readers’ perceived use of strategies.
Wenden(1998)maintainsthatL2learners’metacognitiveknowledgeoflanguagelearningcanofferusimportantinformationabouttheirconceptualisationsofthelanguage-learningprocess.Perhapsinspiredbythisthought,recentattemptshavestartedtoinvestigatetheirmetacognitiveknowl-edgeofL2learningstrategiesinordertoestablishpossiblelinksbetweenlearn-ers’knowledgeanduseofstrategiesincontext.Forexample,Zhang’s(1999)first-phasestudyinvestigatedChineseEFLreaders’perceiveduseofreadingstrategieswithanEFLreadingstrategiesinventory(subjectN=312).Hisfind-ingscoincidedwiththoseofCarrell’s(19)inthathissubjects’preferencesforglobalstrategieswereL2proficiency-specific.PoorEFLreaders’lowproficiencyunderminedtheiractivationoftheeffectiveandglobalstrategiesfavouredbyreadingresearchersandeffectivereaders(Anderson,1991;Block,1986;Carrell,19).WithEFLproficiencyfunctioningasadividingline,hisfindingsfurthersuggestedthat,byandlarge,thePRCEFLreaderstendedtouseboth‘local’and‘global’strategiesformeaning-construction.Thehighscorersreportedusing‘global’strategiessuchas‘guessingmeaningthroughinferences’morefrequently,whilethelowscorersmentioned‘local’strategiessuchas‘detailingword meanings’.Metacognition
Metacognition,ormetacognitiveknowledge(Flavell,1976,1987,1992),asreferredtoinmystudy,isacomplicatedconceptanditsdefinitionismultifarious(Brownetal.1983;Hacker,1998).Ithasincreasinglybeenusedto‘refertoaperson’scognitionaboutcognition,thatis,theperson’smetacognitiveknowl-edgeofcognitiveprocessesandstatessuchasmemory,attention,knowledge,conjecture[and]illusion’(Wellman,1985:1;seealsoGarner,1994;Hacker,1998,forrecentreviews).Anotherterm,metacognitiveawareness,isalsousedtorefertoalmostthesamethingasmetacognition.Nowadays,thesetermsareusedwidelyineducationalpsychologyandcognitivepsychologytomean‘thinkingaboutthinking’,orregulationandexecutionofcognition(Baker&Brown,1984;Flavell, 1987, 1992; Hacker, 1998).
Appliedtoreadingresearch,metacognitionisdefinedinsimilarways.Forexample,Garner(1994:720)hasalsodefinedmetacognitionwithinFlavell’smodel.Insecond-languageacquisition(SLA)/literacyresearchandthebilin-gualismliteraturesomeothertermssuchas‘metalinguisticknowledge’or‘metalinguisticawareness’areusedinsteadtotermwhatisgenerallyreferredtoasacomponentofthe‘taskknowledge’withintheFlavellianmodel(e.g.Bialystok & Ryan, 1985; Charlisleet al., 1999; Sorace, 1985).
ThoughearlierFlavellianmodels(e.g.Flavell,1976)emphasisedconscious(i.e.highlyanalysed)knowledge,recentdevelopmentsincognitivepsychologyhaveincludedexecutivecontrol(citedinBialystok&Ryan,1985:209;seealsoFlavell,1987,1992;Hacker,1998).AccordingtoFlavell(1987),thisconcept
Awareness in Reading271
shouldbeexpandedtoincludenotonlycognitivevariables;butrather,anythingaffective:
Metacognitionisusuallydefinedasknowledgeandcognitionaboutcogni-tiveobjects,thatis,anythingcognitive.However,theconceptcouldreason-ablybebroadenedtoincludeanythingpsychological,ratherthancognitive…Metacognitiveknowledgeisconceivedassimplythatportionofthetotalknowledgebasethatpertainstothiscontentarea.Metacognitiveknowl-edgecanbesubdividedintothreecategories:knowledgeofpersonvari-ables; task variables; and strategy variables … (1987: 21–24).
ThisstudyusedFlavell’s(1987)conceptasthetheoreticalframework,becauseinsecond/foreign-languagelearningresearchthisconcepthassuccessfullyhelpedotherresearchersinanalysingL2learners’strategies(O’Malley&Chamot,1990;Wenden,1991,1998)andtheirmetacognitiveknowledgeofstrat-egyuse(Goh,1998;Zhang,1999).Onethingthatneedstobepointedoutisthatalthoughretrospectivereportshavebeengenerallyreferredtoasevidenceofsubjects’useoflanguage-learningstrategies,thisstudyreferstothesedataassubjects’strategicknowledge,i.e.theirmetacognitiveawarenessofwhichstrate-giestheyuseindependentlyofareadingtask.Thispapercentresonlyonthisaspect.Itisbasedontheunderstandingthat(1)strategiesarelearners’conscious,active,andself-directedeffortsforlearningalanguageormeaning-making(Cohen,1996;O’Malley&Chamot,1990;Schmidt,1993;Wenden,1991);and‘theyarenotasingleevent,butratheracreativesequenceofeventsthatlearnersactivelyuse’(Oxford,1996:x);and(2)readingis‘notmerelyapassiveprocessofextractingmeaningfromtheprintedpage,butratheranactiveandinteractiveprocessinwhichthereaderusesknowledgeofthelanguagetopredictandcreatemeaningbasedonthetext’(McLeod&McLaughlin,1986:114).Itisalsobasedonanassumptionthatmetacognitionhasanimportantroletoplayinthereadingprocess;hence,readerswhohaveclearermetacognitiveawarenessofthenatureofthereadingtaskandoftheirownstrategiesfortextprocessingwilldifferfromthose who do not.
The Current Study
ThestudywasconductedtofurtherinvestigatePRCEFLlearners’metacognitiveknowledgeofreadingstrategyuseattwouniversitiesinanorth-westerncityofabout2.5millionpeopleinthePRC,wherethemajorityoftheEFLlearnerswerestudyinginaninput-poorenvironmentinordertosatisfytheForeignLanguageRequirementsforgraduation(Cortazzi&Jin,1996).Englishwasacompulsorysubjectforthefirsttwoyearsintheirfouryearprogrammeintheuniversitieswithanaverageoffourhoursofclassroomexposureperweek.Attheendofthefirstyear,thefreshmenhadtosittheCET(CollegeEnglishTest)BandIItoqualifyforthenextyear.Thetestwasagradedproficiencytestofuniversitystudents’achievementaswellastheirproficiencyinEFL.Failurewouldresultintheiraccesstohigherlevelsbeingdenied.Thetestcomprisedlisteningcomprehension,readingcomprehension,grammarandvocabulary,cloze,andguidedwriting.ItsformatisverysimilartothatoftheTOEFL.Becauseoftestingeffects,thestandardcurriculumwassetwithinthisparameter:inten-
272Language Awareness
sivereading,extensivereading,fastreading,andlisteningcomprehension,withwritingbeinglessemphasisedbyEFLteachers.Intheinstitutionswherethesubjectsforthisstudyweresampled,oneortwohoursofspeakingperweekwerealsoincludedinthecurriculum.Thecurriculumseemedtosuggestthatreadingtookupthebulkofthestudents’time,butwhenthisstudywasconducted,thestudentsreportedhavinglittleexposuretootherEnglishreadingmaterialsthantheirtextbooks.TheirEFLteachers’teachingmethodsvariedfromtraditionalgrammar-translationmethodtomorecommunicativeapproaches.Subjects
TenEFLreaderswereselectedfromasampleof312participants.Forthepurposeofcomparison,anorthogonaldesignwasadopted,i.e.inboththehigh-scorerandthelow-scorergroupsfivestudentsweresampled,asshowninTable1.ThesestudentswereadmittedtothetwouniversitiesthroughtheNationalUniversityMatriculation(NUM)examinationsfromacrossthecountry.ResultsfromaSubjects’BackgroundQuestionnaire(Appendix)showedthattheystartedtheirformaleducationinChinesewhentheywereinkindergartenorprimaryschool.Table 1Subjects’ proficiency levels in EFL and L1
NameDanpingShuqiLiuyongYuanyuanHuiyanHigh EFL scorersEFL score (%)L1 score (%)809379847476827079NameZiranQingchiLihaoJiaqingXiwuLow EFL scorersEFL score (%)L1 score (%)46765869547347805360ThedataalsoshowedthattheybegantolearnEnglishasaforeignlanguageat
theageof13,asrequiredbytheMinistryofEducation.TheyhadatotalofaboutsevenyearsofclassroomEFLlearning,amountingtoabout1300hoursofclass-roomexposuretoEnglish.TheiraverageEFLproficiencywasestimatedtobeequivalenttoabout450ontheTOEFL.TheirChinesereadingabilitiesrangedfromgoodtoexcellent,asobservedfromtheirtestscoresintheNUMChineseLanguage and Literature examination. Their average age was around 19.Research question
Thestudywassetuptoexplorethequestion:whattypesofmetacognitiveknowledgeofreadingstrategyusedidEFLlearnersofdifferentproficiencylevels have while learning to read EFL?Data collection
Asemistructuredinterviewguide(Appendix)wasdesignedmainlyinChinese.ThiswasadministeredtothemtoelicittheirmetacognitiveknowledgeofstrategyusewithintheframeworkofFlavell(1987).Theinterviewwassemistructuredinnature.Someofthequestionswereposeddirectlytothesubjects,whereassomewereformulatedafterapreliminaryanalysisofthedata.
Awareness in Reading273
Inthecurrentstudy,interviewprotocolsweretreatedasdata,asthesubjectswerecognitivelymatureenoughtoarticulatetheirconsciousmentalmoves,i.e.theirstrategicknowledgeofEFLreading(Cohen,1996;Ericsson&Simon,1993;Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1984).High scorers and low scorers
WhentheEFLtestscoresofthesubjectswereobtainedtwoweeksaftertheCETBandIIwasadministeredatthetwouniversities,thesubjectsweredividedinto‘highscorers’and‘lowscorers’accordingtotheirperformance,andaficti-tiousnamewasassignedtoeachsubjectinordertomaintainanonymity.Ascoreof60outof100wasregardedasacut-offpoint,belowwhichasubjectwascate-gorised into the low-scorer group.Coding the mentalistic data
Aschemeforcodingtheverbaldatafromtheinterviewswasdevelopedonthebasisoftheresultsobtainedfromthepilotstageforthisstudy(seeZhang,1999,formore).InthisschemeFlavell’smodel(1987)wasfollowedandstudents’metacognitiveknowledgeofEFLreadingwasclassifiedintothreecategoriesandacodewasgivenforeachcategoryofmetacognitiveknowledge:person,taskandstrategy(Appendix).Theschemewasfurtherformulatedoutoftheresultsofthedataanalysisfromwhichcertainpatternshademerged.First,Ibrowsedthroughalltheaudio-recordingsofthesubjectsandrandomlychosetotranscribeandanalysefivesubjects’transcripts.Then,anotherjudge,whosenativelanguagewasChineseandwhohadextensivetraininginappliedlinguisticsbothinherhomecountryandoverseas,independentlyanalysedthesametranscripts.Thereafter,thedatawereclassifiedindependentlyintodifferentcategorieswithreferencetothecodingscheme.Thesubjects’strategicknowledgewasgivenacodeSK.Allthedatawereanalysedfollowingthisprincipleandmethod.Theinter-rater reliability coefficient turned out to be acceptable (r= 0.90,p< 0.01).Findings and analyses
Resultsshowedthatthesubjects’metacognitiveknowledgeofwhichstrate-giestheyusedindependentlyofEFLreadingtasksvariedacrossEFLproficiencylevels,withhighscorerspredominantlyshowingclearerawarenessofstrategyuse.Incontrast,thelowscorersdidnotrealisethatreadingEFLrequiredthemtoadoptdifferentreadingstrategiestosolvetheproblemstheymightencounter.Theysaidthatmostoftentheyhadtohandlereadingtasksbychunking,detail-ingeverylinguisticelementinprint.Inaddition,theyreportedthattheywerereluctanttostopusingdictionariesortranslatingintoChinesetomakemeaningsclear.Interestinglythough,eventhelowscorerswereawarethatsuchstrategiescouldnegativelyaffecttheirL2readingefficiency.Bothgroups’interviewproto-cols revealed their metacognitive knowledge of 12 types of strategies (Table 2).Aquantitativeanalysisoftheirreportednumberofmentionsofstrategicknowledgefurthershowedthattherewasadifferencebetweenthehighscorersandthelowscorers,withtheformerbeingmorestronglyawareoftheiruseofstrategiesforprocessingL2writteninputthanthelatter.Itwasespeciallytruewhenbothgroups’knowledgeof‘metacognitivemonitoring’wascompared,withhighscorerssurpassinglowscorers(80%vs.20%).Thesubjects’
274Language Awareness
Table2Typeandfrequencyofmetacognitiveknowledgeofstrategies(reportednumber of mentions) by high scorers and low scorers
Metacognitivestrategic knowledgetypeAnticipating textcontentMonitoringcomprehensionAcknowledging a lackof lexical resourcesStating a lack ofbackground/schemaknowledgeSkimming for mainideasTranslating into L1Frequency (%)Metacognitivestrategic knowledgeHighLowtypescorersscorers4515Rereading sentence orparagraph8020Using dictionary formeaning-detailing6580Guessing meaningfrom context throughinferences4558Analysingsyntax/grammaticalstructures5632Asking for help toclarify meaning4365Cooperating with thetextFrequency (%)HighLowscorersscorers657540556020342420451530metacognitiveknowledgeofeachspecificstrategyispresentedinthefollowing
sections.
Anticipating text contents
ItappearedevidentthatthehighandthelowEFLscorersreporteddifferently.Themetacognitiveknowledgeofthisparticularstrategywasreportedmoreoftenbythehighscorers(45%vs.15%).WhenthehighscorersreportedtheirknowledgeofusingthisstrategyintheirEFLreading,theyalsorealisedthatitwasimportanttoapproachatextfromoutside,i.e.thinkingaboutwhatthetextmightbeaboutbeforegoingintodetails.Huiyan,ahighscorersaid,‘althoughreadingisnotasdifficultasspeaking,IstillfeelthatlearninghowtoreadinEnglishisveryimportant.So,inreadingatext,Iwouldliketopredictitscontentbylookingatthetitle,topicsentenceofthefirstparagraph,etc’.Alowscorer,Xiwu’scommentwassomewhatdifferent:‘IseldomanticipatetextcontentinreadingEFL,andmostofthetimeIwouldreadatextcarefullyfromtheverybeginning in order to understand each expression’.
Monitoring comprehension
Monitoringwasreportedtobeoneofthemostimportantandusefulstrategieswithinthemetacognitiveknowledgeofthehighscorers(80%).Thisisbecausemonitoringisareflectionof‘learners’abilitiestoaccuratelyassessthestateofinformationwithintheirowncognitivesystem’(Wellman,1985:3;seealsoFlavell,1987,1992;Garner,1994).TheyusedotherChinesewordsequivalentto‘checking’or‘revisiting’tomeanthattheywereawareofmonitoringtheircomprehension.InthewordsofShuqing,ahighscorer:‘Checkingmycompre-hensionisimportant,assometimes,evenifIfinishreadingaparagraph,Iamnotsureofitsmeaning,andIneedtocheckandoccasionallydouble-checkthatmycomprehensionisright’.Lowscorers,incontrast,reportedamuchlower
Awareness in Reading275
frequencyoftheirawarenessofthisstrategyuse(20%)andtheirlackofconcernforcheckingtheircomprehensionshowedthattheydidnotattachvaluetothisimportantaspect.ThisviewisevidentinZiran’sreport:‘Idon’thavetimetocheckmycomprehension.Ishouldfirstlookupallthenewwordsinmyreading’.
Acknowledging a lack of lexical resources
Boththehighscorersandthelowscorersfrequentlyreportedanawarenessofalackofvocabulary,showingthatalthoughtheyhadlearnedEFLforaboutsevenyearsbythetimethisstudywasconducted,theystillseemedtobedauntedbynewwords.Theymostoftenreportedthatwithoutagoodlexicalknowledge,readinginL2wouldbeverydifficult.Itseemedthatvocabularywasthebasicmaterialformeaning-constructionforthem.Theytendedtosolvetheirproblemseitherbyconsultingadictionaryoravoidingthedifficultpointsandstillfeelingpuzzled.AsQingchi,alowscorer,putit,‘MybiggestprobleminreadingEFListhatIdon’thavealargevocabulary.Inmanyinstances,IhavetoadmitthatmyvocabularyislimitedandifIdon’thaveadictionary,Ihavetoavoidsuchdiffi-cultlexicalitemssothatmyunderstandingwillnotbeaffected’.Thehighscorersseemedtofacesimilarchallenges,althoughtheirknowledgeofstrategyusewoulddiffer,asreportedbyHuiyan:‘Ofcourse,whenthetextisalittlebeyondourlevel,wewillfeelthatitisdifficulttounderstand.Itismainlybecauseourvocabularyislimited,butIwilltrysomeothermeansaswell,e.g.guessingthemeaning of new words’.
Stating a lack of background/schema knowledge
Researchhasshownthatbackgroundknowledgeisthebasisuponwhichreadersinteractwiththetextbeingread(Anderson&Pearson,1984;Block,1986;Garner,1994).However,ifreadersstatethattheydonothavesuchknowledgeandconsciouslyreportlackingsuchknowledge,theircomprehensionmightsuffer.Asaresult,theyhavetofindotherwaystoachievetheircomprehension.Asillustratedbytheexcerptsbelow,boththelowandthehighscorers’clearawarenessoftheirlackofstrategyresourcesshowedthattheyregardedback-groundandculturalknowledgeasimportant.Lihao’scommentshowedthatasalowscorerheneededculturalknowledgetoassisthisreading:‘Culturalback-groundandotherkindsofknowledgeareveryimportant.ButIcannothaveallthisknowledgeinoneday,asmuchofthisknowledgecomestogetherwiththelanguageandmywiderreadingandlearningexperience’.Liuyong’scommentsimilarlyreflectedhisawarenessoftheimportanceofusingthisknowledgeinreadingasahighscorer:‘InreadingEFLIhavetousemyculturalknowledgetohelpmyunderstanding.WhatisleftformeinlearningtoreadEFLisnotonlytoimprovemylanguageproficiencybutalsomyculturalknowledge.So,Ihavetouse my background knowledge to help me understand the text’.
Skimming for main ideas
Thehighscorersandthelowscorersseemedtobedifferentiatedfromeachotherbytheirvariedfrequencyofreportedknowledgeofthisstrategyuse.Aknowledgeofskimmingforthemainideaisgenerallyregardedpertinenttoreaders’efficacyinreading;yet,howtousethisstrategyindifferentcontextshastobetakenintoaccountwheninvestigatingtheirstrategicknowledge.Thelow
276Language Awareness
scorersdidnotreporthavingsuchstrategicknowledgeinL2readingpracticescomparedtotheirhigherproficiencycounterparts(56%vs.32%).HighscorerYuanyuan’scommentsshowedherclearreflectionaboutherstrategicknowl-edge:‘IoftenskimforthemainideaofthetextthatIamtoread,especiallyifIseethattherearecomprehensionquestionsafterthepassage.Usuallythecompre-hensionquestionsincludeoneortwoquestions,whicharespecificallyaboutthemainideaofthetext.IfIreadonslowly,thenIwillnothaveenoughtimetocompletethetask’.Lowscorers,incomparison,didnotreportthistendencystrongly,ascommentedbyXiwu:‘IfIreadformainideasonly,Iwillnotimprovein my reading, especially my vocabulary’.
Translating into L1
Thoughbothgroups’metacognitiveknowledgeofusingthestrategyof‘trans-latingL2intoL1’inordertocomprehendwasobvious,onaverage,thisstrategywaslessoftenreportedtobeusedcomparedwiththefrequencyofotherstrate-giessuchas‘acknowledgingalackoflexicalresources’.Itseemsthatthehighscorersweremoremetacognitivelyawareoftheconsequencesofusingthisstrat-egy,i.e.translatingintoL1wouldtakeuptoomuchoftheirtime,sotheyconsciouslyavoidedthis.Nevertheless,thelowscorerstendedtousetranslationasastrategytounderstandeverydetailofthetext.Shuqing’sreportwastypicalofthosehighEFLscorers:‘IsometimestranslatethesentencesorwordsintoChinese,butIdon’tdosoveryoften,astranslatingEnglishintoChineseisnotagoodwayoflearningtoread’.Incontrast,Ziran,constrainedbyhislowEFLproficiency,reported:‘IfIhavedifficultsentences,wordsorexpressions,IwouldliketotranslatethemintoChinese.Thisisbecausetranslationmakeseverythingclearer and I have enough confidence in what I am trying to understand’.Re-reading sentence or paragraph
Re-readingisregardedasanefficientreadingstrategyintheliterature(Anderson,1991;Block,1986;Carrell,19).Nevertheless,toofrequentuseofare-readingstrategycouldimpedethereadingspeedandthecoherenceofwhatisread.Whilethehighscorersreportedhavingclearerawarenessofusingsuchastrategymoreflexibly,thelowscorersdidnotdoso.Eveniftheydid,theirreporteduseofthisstrategywasmorefordecodingdiscreteportionsofatextthanforcomprehensionofalargerdiscourse.Forexample,highscorerYuanyuansaid:‘Ioftenre-readwords,expressionsorsentenceswhicharediffi-cultformetounderstand.OnemainpurposeformydoingsoistomakesurethatIunderstandwhattheybasicallymean.Then,IcanassuremyselfthatIhavecomprehendedintherightway’.Incontrast,lowscorerXiwu’sstrategicknowl-edgeseemedtobedifferent:‘Ire-readeverysentencethemomentIstartreadingatextorapassage,becauseIfeelthateverydetailisimportantformycompre-hension and language improvement’.
Using dictionary for meaning-detailing
Dictionariesarenecessaryforlearningaforeignlanguage.Thismightbethereasonwhythehighscorersandthelowscorershadvaryinglevelsofawarenessofdictionaryuse(40%and60%respectively).Itseemedthatdictionaryuseindifferentcontextscouldhavedifferenteffectsonreadingefficacy.Lowscorers,suchasXiwu,Jiaqing,ZiranandLihao,tendedtoconsultdictionarieswhenever
Awareness in Reading277
theysawanewword,asthiswouldhelpthem‘agreatdealandsavetimeinread-ing’.However,theproblemthatDanpinghadasahighscorerwasthatsheuseddictionariesonlywhenshesawthatthemeaningsofthewordsweretooambigu-ousforhertoworkoutorwhentherewereno‘supportingcontextsorclues’thatcould help her guess or infer the meanings of unknown words.
Guessing meaning from context through inferences
Otherthanusingdictionaries,thehighscorers’reportedstrategicknowledgeshowedthattheytendedtousecontextualcluesandguessmeaningsofthetextthroughinferencesmoreoften(55%).Thelowscorers,preferredtoworkoutthemeaningthroughfrequentuseofdictionariesratherthanguessing(20%).HighscorerYuanyuansaidthatshewouldguessthemeaningfirst,andifshecouldn’tworkoutthemeaningthisway,shewoulduseothermeanssuchasresortingtodictionaries,asusingdictionaries‘couldbemuchmoreefficientinthissituation’.Jiaqingtendedtousedictionariesmoreoftenthaninferencing,becauseshefoundthatshemightwastealotofhertimeguessing,asherEFLproficiencywasso low.
Analysing syntax or grammatical structures
Readerawarenessoftheuseof‘analysingsyntaxorgrammaticalstructures’asastrategywasalsomoreclearlyreportedbythehighscorers(34%)thanbythelowscorers(24%).Whenthehighscorersreportedthatbyanalysingthestruc-turesoflongandcomplicatedsentencestheydidnotunderstand,theyfoundthemselvesabletoproceedwiththeirreadingandgetanaccurateunderstandingofthetextmeaning.HighscorerYuanyuanreflectedthatgrammarwasconstantlyemphasisedinherEnglishclassesfromthefirstdayandperhapsbecauseofthislearningexperience,shesaid:‘Surely,learnersoughttoanalysegrammaticalstructuresofthesentencesiftheycannotunderstandthemwhengrammaticalcomplexityisthere’.ChineseEnglishteachersalsoseemedtohavesomeexplicitinfluenceonhighscorers’reportingoftheirstrategicknowledge,asseenfromhighscorerDanping’sreporting:‘Ourteacherstaughtusalotofgram-marand,whenwewereinneedofthisknowledge,weshoulduseit.Otherwise,itwouldbeawasteoftheteachers’effort’.Itseemedthatthelow-scorersrealisedtheirweaknessinEnglishgrammar,andtheirlimitedgrammaticalknowledgedidnotallowthemfrequentuseofthisknowledgeinreading.Lihao’sreportingillustratedthispointsuccinctly:‘Mygrammarisquitepoor,so,whenIhavediffi-cultyinunderstandinglongsentences,Ialsowanttoanalysegrammaticalstruc-tures, but my English grammar is limited, and in such cases I cannot do so’.Asking for help to clarify meaning
Askingforhelptoclarifymeaninginreadingwasregardedasbeinghelpfulbybothgroups(20%vs.15%).Ahighscorer,Shuqingsaid:‘IfIfoundsomewordsorideasorcertainsentencesnewtomeordifficulttounderstand,Iwouldaskmyteacherorfriendsforhelp,becauseIhavesomefriendswhoseEnglishismuchbetterthanmine’.Ziran,asalowscorer,alsoseemedtohaverealisedtheimportanceofthismetacognitivestrategicknowledgeandcommented:‘Teachersarenecessarilyhigherinproficiency,soIalsoaskthem.IfIkeepquietallthetimeevenifIdon’tunderstandthetext,thenIwillnevercomprehenditand I will never make progress in my English learning’.
278Language Awareness
Cooperating with the text
Readers’cooperationwiththetextformeaningmakingisonewayofreveal-ingtheirunderstandingofthetextasitisprocessed.Thisisbecausereaders’reportedknowledgeofusingthisstrategymightwellreflecttheiremotionalreactionstothetextsortheirdesiretosocialisewiththewriter.Whentheyhaddifficultyinteractingwithatext,theytendedtoprobeintothetexttoworkoutitsmeaning.Incaseswheretheysuccessfullynegotiatedoutthemeaning,theywereconsciouslycooperatingwiththewriterandthetextaswell.Thehighscorersandthelowscorersseemedtobedifferentinthefrequencyoftheirreports(45%vs.30%).ThisdifferenceseemedtobeattributabletotheirdifferentL2proficiencylevels.LowscorerXiwusaid:‘Mostofthetime,whenIunderstandmore,Irespondmoretowhattheauthorsaysinthetext’.HighscorerDanpingseemedtohaveasimilarunderstanding:‘WhenIamreadingatext,Itendtobemoreresponsive to the author. If he has a point, I would definitely agree’.
Discussion
L2 proficiency and L2 reading
Learners’metacognitivestrategicknowledgeinvolvesthinkingaboutthereadingprocess,planningforreading,monitoringcomprehensionwhileread-ing–overseeing,supervising,regulating,evaluatingthereadingprocessandtheeffectivenessofstrategiesusedinreading,andverifyingwhatisread,aswellasspecificstepsinproblemsolvingduringcomprehension(Flavell,1987;O’Malley&Chamot,1990;Wenden,1991;Young&Oxford,1997).ThefindingsfromthepresentstudyshowedthatthesubjectsrevealedtheirstrategicknowledgealongEFLproficiencylevels.Thisseemedtosuggestthatreaders’L2proficiencylevelandL2readingabilityinteractedwitheachother.Thehighscorersseemedtohavedistinguishedthemselvesfromthelowscorersintheirreportedfrequencyofhavingthestrategicknowledge.Thisfrequencywasreflectedintheirunder-standingofwhen,whereandhowtheytendedtousethesestrategies.ThehighEFLscorers’commentsindicatedthattheyhadclearerknowledgeaboutwhatstrategiestheypossessedandwhatstrategiestheylacked.Thelowscorers’lowEFLproficiencyappearedtohave‘short-circuited’theirdeploymentofeffectivereadingstrategiesformeaning-construction(Clark,1980).Thehighscorers,incomparison,werenotsomuchconfinedtotheirL2linguisticboundaries.Take,forinstance,theirreportedknowledgeof‘monitoringcomprehension’;theformerwereobviouslyclearerthantheirlowproficiencycounterparts.ThismightreflectwhattheyhadexperiencedintheirL1reading,i.e.theimportanceof checking comprehension.
Intermsofhavinganawarenessofsuchstrategicknowledgeas‘skimmingformainideas’and‘analysingsyntax/grammaticalstructuresformean-ing-making’,acomparisonofbothgroups’reportedfrequencysuggestedthatoncetheirL2proficiencyallowedthemtotakeaglobalviewofthetext,bothgroupswouldputtextmeaninginthefirstplace.Bothgroupsreportedthattheirknowledgeofanalysingsyntax/grammaticalstructureshelpedthemtounder-standdetailsofthetext.Theirstrategicknowledgemightalsohavebeenatrans-plantoftheirreadingteachers’classroompractices,i.e.EFLteachers’explicitinstructionalfocusongrammaticalanalysismightbereflectedintheirreportson
Awareness in Reading279
strategicknowledge.ThestudentsmightalsobeinfluencedbytheirknowledgeoftheirEFLlearningobjectives–toimprovetheiroveralllanguageskills.Thoughtheselearnersexpressedrelativereluctancein‘askingforhelptoclarifymeaning’intheirreading,thistendencycouldbeattributedtohavingastrangerintheirclassroom,whichmighthaveincreasedtheirlevelofanxiety(Zhang,2000).However,thehighscorersdidnotreportasfrequentlyastheirlow-proficiencycounterpartson‘statingalackofbackground/schemaknowl-edge’.Thismightbeduetotheformer’srelativelyhigherL2proficiency,whichcouldalsohavearmedthemwithnecessaryschemaknowledgeintheirdailyL2learning experiences.
Role of linguistic and other knowledge in L2 reading
ThePRCEFLreaders’reportsontheirstrategicknowledgeinthepresentstudysimilarlyshowedthattheywereconstrainedbytheirlackofsufficientlinguisticknowledge(e.g.lexicalresources,grammaticalstructures)andotherknowledge,e.g.background/schemaknowledge.Availableliteraturedocu-mentstheimportanceofreaders’schemaknowledgeinreadingcomprehension.Forexample,Rumelhart(1980:33)positsthat‘schemataarethebuildingblocks’forcognition(seealsoAnderson&Pearson,1984;Hudson,1982).Thefindingsfromthepresentstudyseemedtoshowsupporttothisposition.Whatismoreinteresting,though,isthatthehighscorers,becauseoftheirclearerawarenessoftheobstaclestotheircomprehension,didnotreportastrongerdeficitinschemaknowledge.Thiswouldsuggestthatastheybecamemorefamiliarwiththelanguageasasystemandtherelatedschemaknowledge,theywouldprobablyapproachthetextinsimilarwaysastheydoinL1reading(Bernhardt&Kamil,1995; Perkinset al. 19; Tang, 1997).
AsBialystokandRyan(1985:213)state,‘learningtoreadnotonlyrequiresadequatelevelsofanalysedknowledgebutalsoresultsinattainmentofstillhigherlevelsofsuchknowledge’.Seeingthatgrammarwasnotasbigachallengeaslexicalconstraints,vocabularymightbe,intheirminds,regardedasthebasicbuildingmaterialforcomprehension.Thelowscorers,inparticular,feltmuchmorechallengedwhentheydidnothavesufficientreadingvocabulary.Thesubjectsalsosaidthattheyneededtoknowmoreaboutthebackgroundorculturalknowledgeofthetext.Thiswasexpectedofthesestudents,astheydidnothavemuchexposuretotheEnglishreadingmaterialsintheirdailylivesexcept for their college EFL textbooks.Utility of strategic knowledge in L2 reading
Whilethelowscorers’metacognitiveknowledgeoftheiruseofsuchstrategiesasdecodingthemessage,eitherthroughlookingforlexicalprecisionortransla-tion,suggeststhattheypreferredthesestrategiesformeaning-making,thehighscorerstendedtobemeaning-gettersandvetters;i.e.theyknewbetterwhichstrategiescouldbeusedmoreeffectivelyinorderforcomprehensiontooccur.Thedataalsoseemedtofurtherindicatethat,byvirtueoftheirbetterL2linguisticknowledge,thehighscorershadstrongermetacognitiveknowledgeoftheutilityofthe‘global’strategiessuchas‘skimming’,‘guessingthroughreferences’and‘anticipating’, and they tended to have a stronger awareness of using them.Thoughtheselearnersgenerallyhadclearmetacognitivestrategicknowl-
280Language Awareness
edge,anumberoflowscorersseemedtobeblockedbytheirlackofit.Theirlackofsuchknowledge,inparticular,wasreflectedintheirstrongerrelianceonlinguisticknowledgethanoncheckingtheusefulnessofthestrategies.Instead,theyfocusedtheirattentionondecodingthelinguisticdata,e.g.consultingdictionaries,translatingintoL1,orrereadingsentenceorparagraph.Neverthe-less,itwasunclearwhethertheywereunabletoreportclearerawarenessoftheiruseof‘global’strategiesduetotheirlowerEFLproficiency,orbecauseoftheirdifferent perceptions of the relevance of these strategies.
WhilesomeresearchersfoundthatsuccessfulL2readerscouldrealisetheimportanceofcorrectlyguessingthemeaningsofunknownwordswhilereading(e.g.Block,1986;Carrell,19),othersquestionedthesignificanceofdoingso.Theirbeliefisthatguessinginitsownrightrarelyhelpscomprehensioninaconstrainedcontext(Clark,1980;Laufer,1997).ThismightsuggestthatthelowscorersinthisstudydidnotreportasfrequentlytheirknowledgeoftheguessingstrategypossiblybecausetheydidnotreachthenecessarylinguisticthresholdthatcouldenablethemtoactivatethestrategiestheymightuseinreadingL1(Gu&Johnson,1996;Laufer,1997).Guessingisadvocatedasaneffectivestrategybyresearchers,butthesubjects,particularlythelowscorers,seemedincapableofusingcontextualcluestoguessmeanings.Insuchcases,usingdictionariescoupledwithtranslationwasthenorm.Laufer(1997)haspresentedthreekindsoflexicalplightsinL2reading:wordsthereaderdoesnotknow,wordsthereaderthinksheknows,andwordsthereadercannotguess.Laufer’sargumentisthatnon-existentcontextualclues,unusablecontextualclues,misleadingandpartialcluesandsuppressedcluesareallpossibleconstraintsonEFLreaders.Partofthefindingsseemedtoconcurwiththisview.Thesubjects’strategicknowledgeveryoftenwasconfinedtolexicalknowledgeandtheimportanceofvocabulary in L2 reading.
TherelationshipbetweenL2learners’strategicknowledgeandtheiractualdeploymentofthesestrategiesinspecificreadingtaskshasyettobeuncovered.Nevertheless,itcanbesurmisedthatevenifthereadershadstrategicknowledgeofhowtoapproachtheirreadingtasks,thespecificproblemsinreadingdidnotseemtobesolvedcompletely.Perkinsetal‘s(19)studyshowsthatevenifareaderhasgoodmetacognitivestrategiesinuseinL1,thesewillnotbeofmuchhelpinL2beforeasolidlanguagebasehasbeenreached.Similarfindingshavebeenreportedinseveralrecentstudies(e.g.Bernhardt&Kamil,1995;Carrell,1991).However,thereseemstobealikelihoodthatwhenreaders’EFLprofi-ciencyreachesacertainlevel,thismetacognitivestrategicknowledgecouldfacil-itatetheirreadingcomprehension(Baker&Brown,1984;Carrell,19;Wenden,1998).
Metacognitionisthoughtofascomprisingknowledgeandregulatoryskillsthatareusedtocontrolone’scognition.Theresultsinmystudyseemtosuggestthatbothaspectsofmetacognitionfunctionedinthereadingprocessinthatthesubjects’knowledgeofgrammaticalanddiscoursalrelationshipsisanecessaryprerequisiteforanaccurateunderstandingofthetext(Bialystok&Ryan,1985;Zhang,1999).Inaddition,cognitionandmetacognitiondifferinthatcognitiveskillsarenecessarytoperformatask,whilemetacognitionisnecessarytounder-standhowthetaskisperformed(Flavell,1992;Garner,1994;Hacker,1998).Inotherwords,inthedevelopmentalstageofL2readingability,readers’strategic
Awareness in Reading281
knowledgeisimportant,butunderstandingthenecessarylinguisticelementsisequallynecessaryanddecodingfactorsarecrucial(Bernhardt&Kamil,1995;Bialystok&Ryan,1985;Laufer,1997).The‘inducedschema’(Hudson,1982),i.e.interactionbetweenreaders’background/schemaknowledgeandthereadingtask,hasaveryimportantroletoplay.However,itcannotoverridetherolethatalinguisticthresholdorlinguisticceilingmightplayinthecomprehensionprocess,evenattheintermediatelevels(Bernhardt&Kamil,1995;Gu&Johnson,1996).Boththehigh-scorers’andthelowscorers’reportsendorsedthesefindings.
Similarly,Goh(1998)reportedthatherPRCsubjectshadastrongerpreferenceforcognitivestrategiesintheirEFLlistening,andthattheiractivationofmetacognitivestrategieswasseverelyconstrainedbytheirlackofenoughlinguisticproficiency.Inotherwords,whentheywererequiredtocompleteanactuallinguistictask,theywereobligedtousestrategiesthatarecognitivelylessdemanding(e.g.translatingintoL1,usingadictionary,etc.)duetotheirlackofproficiencyinthetargetlanguage.Nevertheless,itwasunclearwhethertheypreferredthesestrategiesbecausetheyreallywantedtoputthemtouseorbecause their teachers’ instruction had a bearing on their metacognition.
Field(1985)andKohn(1992),however,maintainedthatthereadingstrategiesusedbyPRCEFLreadersweremainlyinfluencedbytheirL1readinghabitandculture,particularlythelogographicwritingsystemoftheChineselanguage.TheyalsoreportedthatPRCEFLreadingteachersencouragedtheirstudentstoreadslowly,comingtotheconclusionthatthesereadersdidnothavefullconcep-tualabilitiestouseabstractprocess-strategies.Asaresult,theirreadingstrate-giesweremoreconcrete,decodingones.Thedatafrommystudyshowedanambivalentpatternregardingtheissuewhenthesubjects’strategicknowledgewasinvestigatedfromametacognitiveperspective.ThefactthattheChinesesocietyhasbeenundergoingadramaticsocialandeconomicrestructuringmighthavesomebearingonclassroomteachers’miniculture.Increasingly,moreWest-ern-educatedorWestern-influencedEFLteachersareteachingatthetertiarylevel.Forexample,whenParry(1996)focusedonhowL1culturalbackgroundsanddifferentliteracyexperiencesinfluencedL2readingstrategyuse,shefoundthattheEFLreadersintoday’sChinausedbothtypesofstrategies,buttheytendedtousebottom-upstrategiesmoreoftenthantop-downstrategies.Thiswasbecause,assheinterpreted,theirlanguage/culturalbackgroundsandexpe-riencesofliteracytraditionshadagreatimpactontheirformulationofindivid-ual reading strategies.
TheChinesestudentsconsciouslylookedforprecisionatthelexicallevel,andonceequippedwitharepresentationofeachword,usedtheirknowl-edgeofEnglishsyntaxtoworkouthowthewordsfittedtogether;onlyastheyadvancedtowardsatranslationofthetextdidtheyfeelabletorelateitin any meaningful way to their own experience. (Parry, 1996: 680)Shealsocautionedthatthisfactshouldnotgiverisetoasimplisticculturaldeter-minism,asindividualvariationexistsand‘individualsandculturesmaychangeintheveryprocessofL2learning’(Parry,1996:687).Hertentativeconclusionwasthatreadingstrategyusewasrelatedtoreaders’culturalbackgroundsandtotheirdifferentL1literacyexperiences.Resultsfrommysubjects’reportedstra-
282Language Awareness
tegicknowledgeseemedtocoincidewithParry’sresearchfindingsaboutChineseEFLreaders,particularlyhercommentsontheirstrongerrelianceontranslation.
Furthermore,mysubjects’interviewprotocolsshowedthatitwasthecharac-teristicsofreportedstrategicknowledgeandtheinteractionofproficiencylevelsthatgluedthemtogetheraslargegroupsofglobal(highscorers)andlocalread-ers(lowscorers).Globalreaderstendedtoreportclearermetacognitiveknowl-edgeofstrategiesthatwerenotconfinedtolexicalprocessingortranslatingintoL1.Instead,theypreferredtoguessthemeaningandmakeinferencesusingcontextualclues.Theyalsotendedtomonitortheircomprehension.Theydidnotlackschemaknowledgesoseverely.ThelocalreadersstillstruggledformeaninginthewayField,KohnandParrydescribed.ThisechoesParry’sreminderthatindividualsandculturescouldbechangingwiththechangeofthelargersocialmilieu in which learning takes place.
TheresultsfromthepresentstudyalsosupporttheviewthatEFLreadershadtheirownunderstandingsofwhatstrategiescanbeemployed.Devine(1984)maintainedthatL2readershadtheirowninternalisedmodelsofreading,andPiper(1994)reportedthathersubjectshadtheirownassumptionsandexpecta-tionsaboutL2learning.Nevertheless,cautionisalsoadvisedininterpretingthefindingsandtheirgeneralisability.Theabovepatternswereonlyareflectionofgroup tendencies rather than stringent features of each individual.
Summary and implications
Theoretical considerations
Itookupthisstudyduetomybeliefthatifresearchers/teacherscoulduncoverEFLreaders’metacognitivestrategicknowledge,thentheywouldbeinabetterpositiontomakeaninformedchoiceinteachingL2reading.Thedatasuggestedthatthehigh-proficiencyEFLreadersweremoreabletoverbalisetheirownunderstandingofthereadingstrategiesavailabletothemthantheirlow-proficiencycounterparts.ThisstrategicknowledgeseemedtobeapathwaytoourlocatingtheirL2readingdifficulties.AllthisseemstosuggestthattheEFLreadersshouldhavemetacognitivestrategicknowledge,becauseiftheywereshowntheimportanceandutilityofthisknowledge,theywouldperhapsstarttoreflectontheirownEFLlearning.Thehighscorersseemedtohavebeendistin-guishedfromtheirlow-proficiencycounterpartsbecauseoftheirdifferencesinreportedstrategicknowledgeandthestrategicresourcesreportedbythelow-proficiency group were particularly limited.
Itcanbehypothesisedthatwhenthelow-proficiencylearnersthemselvesrealisedtheirownstrengthsandweaknessesaslanguagelearners,theywouldnotonlyappreciatetheefficiencyofusingsuchstrategiesformean-ing-construction,butalsotakechargeoftheirownlearning,takingremedialmeasurestoimprovetheirprocessingskills.Thismetacognitivestrategicknowl-edgewouldalsohelpthemtounderstandthatlinguisticproficiencyinthetargetlanguageisnottheonlycrucialfactorinassistingtheirreadingcomprehension.Anissuearisingfromsuchasummary,however,ishowclassroomteacherscandemonstratetheusefulnessandtheeffectivenessofstrategyuseinrelationtoareadingtask,i.e.theremightbeaninterdependenceoftheeffectivenessofstrate-
Awareness in Reading283
giesonspecifictasks.Thetask-specificitynatureofstrategicknowledgemightvalidatefurtherexplorationsintothediversityofreadingstrategyuseindiffer-entgenresoftexts.Thedataonthesubjects’metacognitivestrategicknowledgealsoseemedtosuggestthatL2readingwasaprocessofboth‘automaticity’and‘restructuring’intermsofknowledgerepresentationinanewlanguage(cf.McLeod&McLaughlin,1986).Thiswasparticularlythecasewhentheywerenotsofamiliarwithsomeofthestrategiesthatwereforeigntothem.Anotherissuethathastobetackledishowlanguageteacherscanhelplearnersautomatisetheirreading strategy use through knowledge restructuring of the reading process.However,asstatedearlier,readingisaveryindividualact,thesubtlepartofwhichmaynotbeobservable.AlthoughthedatafromthisstudysuggestthatPRCuniversityEFLreadersweregenerallysuccessfullanguagelearners,giventhesmallsamplesize,thegeneralisabilityofthefindingsmaybequitelimited.Nonetheless,ifthesereadersaspiretobecomemoreefficient,theyneedtodevelopanabilitytousereadingstrategiesflexibly.ThePRCEFLreaders’metacognitiveknowledgeofreadingstrategiesforaccuratemeaningconstruc-tionmightnotbeabadthingassuch,becausethisknowledgeneedstobecontextualisedinordertoseeitsusefulness.However,theirmeticulousattentiontotextfeaturescouldaffecttheirreadingspeed.TheirstrategicknowledgeseemedtoshowthattheirproblemsinEFLreadingwerebothalanguageprob-lemandareadingproblem(Alderson,1984;Bernhardt&Kamil,1995).Previousreportsseemedtohaveignoredthelanguagedifficultiesthestudentsfacedinadditiontotheirneglectofstudentperspectivesonthereadingprocesses(e.g.Field,1985;Kohn,1992).Inaddressingtheissuesrelatingtooutsiders’researchon L2 learners, Richard Young (1987: 15) maintains that
TheteachingofEnglishtospeakersofotherlanguages,likeanyteaching,doesnotoccurinasocioculturalvacuum.Thecultureofthelearners,whichItaketomeanthemeaningswhichtheselearnersassigntoeventsinwhichtheyareparticipants,derivesfromthecultureofthecommunitiesinwhichtheygrowup,andisinfluencedbytheroleswhichthemembersofthatcommunityexpectlearnerstotake.Ontheotherhand,theinterpretationswhichteachersplaceontheeventsinwhichtheyareco-participantswiththeirstudentsmayinsomecasesdifferfromtheinterpretationplacedonthesameeventsbythestudents,andtheresultantmisunderstandingsmaycause serious educational problems.
Thisunderstandingmightalsobeusefulforresearchersandteacherswhoareunfamiliarwiththelargersocial/culturalcontextanditsEFLlanguage-learningandteachingmini-cultures.Futureresearchmightneedtoaddresstherelation-shipbetweenconsciouslyincreasingreaders’metacognitivestrategicknowl-edgeandactualstrategyuseineducationalcontextswheredifferentculturalpractices and values are represented.Practical implications
Havingmetacognitivestrategicknowledgewillnotguaranteethatexpectedachievementgoalsaremet,butitwillhelplearnersthinkabouttheirlearningprocesses.BialystokandRyan(1985:224)concludethat‘bothreadingandwrit-inginvolvedirectingattentiontolinguisticformsandcoordinatinglinguistic
284Language Awareness
analysiswithameaninggoal’.InBakerandBrown’s(1984:376)words,‘theimportanceofemployingproblem-solving,troubleshootingroutines’toenhancecomprehensionshouldalwaysbemadeexplicit.Therefore,helpingL2readersthinkabouttheirlearningandreadingprocessesandthengivingthemencouragementtobuilduptheirconfidencetousetheirreportedstrategicknowledgeinlinguisticanalysiswouldenhanceL2readers’readingefficacy.ThisiswherelearnertrainingcanbeanefficientinstructionalinterventioninL2readingclasses(Wenden,1991).Thus,onewayofdoingsoinL2learnertrainingistopairstudents’metacognitiveknowledgewiththeiruseofstrategiesinrealreadingsituations.Appropriatenessandeffectivenessofstrategyuseincontextswheresuchstrategiescanworkoutthebestresultswouldberelevantprinciplesin learner training.
Asreaders’L2readingabilityandtheirL2proficiencylevelsseemtointeractintheirmetacognitiveawarenessofstrategyuseformeaning-construction,howlanguageteachersbalancetheirteachingofboththeproficiencyandthestrate-giesisofpracticalconcern.IsuggestthatifclassroomteachersincorporatesomeelementsofstrategyinstructionintotheirL2readinginstruction,theeffectswouldbeobvious.Equallypossiblewillbeanactionplanofteachingsomeofthebasicreadingstrategiessuchasanticipating,skimming,monitoringandguess-ingindependentofL2proficiency.ControlledpracticecanguideL2learnerstopickupsomeofthestrategieswhichareforeignbutofvaluetothem.ItmightalsobenecessarythatsomepedagogicalpracticesneedtotakeintoconsiderationEFLreaders’realdifficultiesasindividuals,andifconditionspermit,tailorread-ing programmes according to their abilities and needs.
BecausethePRCEFLteachingandlearningsceneismuchmorecomplicatedthanonestudyofthiskindcanshow,Isuggestthatclassroomteacherstaketeacher-researcherrolestotrytrainingL2readersintheeffectiveuseofstrategiesinrealreadingtasks.Approacheswouldincludeconcurrent/introspectivethink-aloud(e.g.Ericsson&Simon,1993)andretrospectivejournal-keeping(e.g.Goh,1998;Parry,1996).Theseapproachesmayhelptoexplorefurtherthekindsofmetacognitivestrategicknowledgestudentspossessandlack(Wenden,1998).Oncestudents’misconceptionsareuncovered,teacherinterventionwillbemademorevaluable.Teacherscanalsoencouragestudentstosharetheirpositiveexpe-riencesofthesestrategies.Ifteachersfinditdifficulttomodifystudents’falliblestrategicknowledge,teachers’initiativestofacilitatetheiruseofthoseeffectivereading strategies which students themselves will accept should take the lead.Acknowledgements
Thisreportisbasedonpartofalargerstudy(Zhang,1999)conductedinpartialfulfilmentforthePhDdegreeatNanyangTechnologicalUniversity,Singapore.MysincerethanksareduetoDrChristinaHvitfeldtandDrRitaSkuja-Steelefortheirinsightfulsupervision;totheUniversityforitsfinancialsupport;toMsEmmelinePayne,DrYongqiGu,theanonymousLAreviewersandtheEditor,DrPeterGarrett,forreadingthroughandmakingcommentsonearlierversionsofthispaper.Iamindebtedtoalltheparticipantsfortheircoop-eration and contribution. All faults remain mine.
Awareness in Reading285
Correspondence
AnycorrespondenceshouldbedirectedtoDrLawrenceJunZhang,EnglishLanguageandLiteratureAcademicGroup,NationalInsituteofEducation,NanyangTechnologicalUniversity,1NanyangWalk,Singapore637616,Repub-lic of Singapore (jzhang@nie.edu.sg).References
Abraham,R.G.andVann,R.J.(1996)Introduction:ValidityissuesintheassessmentofL2learner strategies.Applied Language Learning7 (1), 1–4.
Alderson,J.C.(1984)Readinginaforeignlanguage:Areadingproblemoralanguageproblem?InJ.C.AldersonandA.H.Urquhart(eds)ReadinginaForeignLanguage.London: Longman.
Anderson,N.J.(1991)Individualdifferencesinstrategyuseinsecondlanguagereadingand testing.Modern Language Journal75 (4), 460–472.
Anderson,R.C.andPearson,P.D.(1984)Aschematic-theoreticviewofbasicprocessesinreading.InP.D.Pearson(ed.)HandbookofReadingResearch.WhitePlains,NY:Longman.
Baker,L.andBrown,A.L.(1984)Metacognitiveskillsandreading.InP.D.Pearson(ed.)Handbook of Reading Research. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Bernhardt,E.B.andKamil,M.L.(1995)InterpretingtherelationshipbetweenL1andL2reading:Consolidatingthelinguisticthresholdandthelinguisticinterdependencehypotheses.Applied Linguistics16 (1), 15–34.
Bialystok,E.andRyan,B.E.(1985)Ametacognitiveframeworkforthedevelopmentoffirstandsecondlanguageskills.InD.L.Forrest-Pressley,G.E.KacKinnonandT.G.Waller(eds)Metacognition,Cognition,andHumanPerformance:TheoreticalPerspectives.New York: Academic Press.
Biggs,J.andWatkins,D.A.(1996)TheChineselearnerinretrospection.InD.A.WatkinsandJ.B.Biggs(eds)TheChineseLearner:Cultural,PsychologicalandContextualInfluences.Hong Kong: CERC and Melbourne, Australia: ACER.
Block,E.(1986)Thecomprehensionstrategiesofsecondlanguagereaders.TESOLQuarterly20 (3), 463–493.
Brown,A.L.,Bransford,J.D.,Ferrara,R.andCampione,J.C.(1983)Learning,remembering,andunderstanding.InJ.H.FlavellandE.M.Markman(eds)HandbookofChild Psychology, Vol. 3: Cognitive Development. New York: Wiley.
Carrell,P.L.(19)Metacognitiveawarenessandsecondlanguagereading.ModernLanguage Journal73 (2), 121–131.
Carrell,P.L.(1991)Secondlanguagereading:Readingabilityorlanguageproficiency?Applied Linguistics12 (2), 159–173.
Charlisle,J.F.,Beeman,M.,Davis,L.H.andSpharim,G.(1999)Relationshipofmetalinguisticcapabilitiesandreadingachievementforchildrenwhoarebecomingbilingual.Applied Psycholinguistics20 (4), 459–478.
Clark,M.A.(1980)Theshort-circuithypothesisofESLreading–orwhenlanguagecompetenceinterfereswithreadingperformance.ModernLanguageJournal(2),203–209.
Cohen,A.D.(1996)Verbalreportsasasourceofinsightsintosecondlanguagelearnerstrategies.Applied Language Learning7 (1), 5–24.
Corazzi,M.andJin,L.(1996)EnglishteachingandlearninginChina:Stateoftheartarticle.Language Teaching29 (2), 61–80.
Devine,J.(1984)ESLreaders’internalisedmodelsofreadingprocesses.InJ.Handscombe,R. Orem and B.P. Taylor (eds)On TESOL ‘83. Washington, DC: TESOL.
Ericsson,K.A.andSimon,H.A.(1993)ProtocolAnalysis:VerbalReportsasData.Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.
Field,M.L.(1985)ApsycholinguisticmodeloftheChineseESLreader.InP.Larson,E.L.Judd and D.S. Messerchmitt (eds)On TESOL ‘84. Washington, DC: TESOL.
286Language Awareness
Flavell,J.H.(1976)Metacognitiveaspectsofproblemsolving.InL.B.Resnick(ed.)TheNature of Intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flavell,J.H.(1987)Speculationsaboutthenatureanddevelopmentofmetacognition.InF.E.WeinertandR.H.Kluwe(eds)Metacognition,MotivationandUnderstanding.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flavell,J.H.(1992)Metacognitionandcognitivemonitoring:Anewareaofcognitive-developmentalinquiry.InT.O.Nelson(ed.)Metacognition:CoreReadings.Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Garner,R.(1994)Metacognitionandexecutivecontrol.InR.B.Ruddell,M.R.RuddellandH.Singer(eds)TheoreticalModelsandProcessesofReading(4thedn).Newark,DE:International Reading Association.
Goh,C.M.(1998)Strategicprocessingandmetacognitioninsecondlanguagelistening.RELC Journal29 (2), 173–175.
Gu,Y.andJohnson,R.K.(1996)Vocabularylearningstrategiesandlanguagelearningoutcomes.Language Learning46 (4), 3–679.
Hacker,D.H.(1998)Definitionsandempiricalfoundations.InD.H.Hacker,J.DunloskyandA.C.Graesser(eds)MetacognitioninEducationalTheoryandPractice.Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.
Hudson,T.(1982)Theeffectsofinducedschemataonthe‘short-circuit’inL2reading:Non-decoding factors in L2 reading performance.Language Learning32 (1), 1–31.Hvitfeldt,C.(1986)Traditionalculture,perceptualstyle,andlearning:Theclassroombehaviour of Hmong adults.Adult Education Quarterly36 (2), 65–77.
Kohn,J.(1992).LiteracystrategiesforChineseuniversitylearners.InF.DubinandN.A.Kuhlman (eds)Cross-cultural Literacy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Laufer,B.(1997)Thelexicalplightinsecondlanguagereading:Wordsyoudon’tknow,wordsyouthinkyouknow,andwordsyoucannotguess.InJ.CoadyandT.Huckin(eds)SecondLanguageVocabularyAcquisition.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Lehtonen,T.(2000)Awarenessofstrategiesisnotenough:Howlearnerscangiveeachother confidence to use them.Language Awareness9 (2), –77.
McLeod,B.andMcLaughlin,B.(1986)Restructuringorautomaticity?Readinginasecondlanguage.Language Learning36 (2), 109–123.
O’Malley,J.M.andChamot,A.U.(1990)LearningStrategiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford,R.L.(ed.)(1996)LanguageLearningStrategiesaroundtheWorld.Honolulu,HI:University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Centre.
Parry, K.J. (1996) Culture, literacy and L2 reading.TESOL Quarterly30 (4), 665–692.Perkins,K.,Brutten,S.R.andPohlmann,J.T.(19)Firstandsecondlanguagereadingcomprehension.RELC Journal20 (2), 1–9.
Piper,A.(1994)Ecologia:Theassumptions,expectationsandstrategiesofmodernlanguagestudentsworkinginaself-accesslearningenvironmentforthefirsttime.Language Awareness3 (1), 11–27.
Rumelhart,D.E.(1980)Schemata:Thebuildingblocksofcognition.InR.J.Spiro,B.C.BruceandW.F.Brewer(eds)TheoreticalIssuesinReadingComprehension.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Schmidt,R.(1993)Awarenessandsecondlanguageacquisition.AnnualReviewofAppliedLinguistics13, 206–226.
Scardamalia,M.andBereiter,C.(1984)Developmentofstrategiesintextprocessing.InH.Mandl,N.L.SteineandT.Trabasso(eds)LearningandComprehensionofText.Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.
Sorace,A.(1985)Metalinguisticknowledgeandlanguageuseinacquisition-poorenvironments.Applied Linguistics6 (3), 239–254.
Tang,H.(1997)TherelationshipbetweenreadingcomprehensionprocessesinL1andL2.Reading Psychology18 (3), 249–301.
Vann,R.J.andAbraham,R.G.(1990)Strategiesofunsuccessfullanguagelearners.TESOLQuarterly24 (2), 177–198.
Wellman,H.(1985)Theoriginsofmetacognition.InD.L.Forrest-Pressley,G.E.
Awareness in Reading287
KacKinnonandT.G.Waller(eds)Metacognition,Cognition,andHumanPerformance:Theoretical Perspectives.New York: Academic Press.
Wen,Q.andJohnson,R.K.(1997)L2learnervariablesandEnglishachievement:Astudyof tertiary-level English majors in China.Applied Linguistics18 (1), 28–48.
Wenden, A.L. (1991)Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy. London: Prentice-Hall.
Wenden,A.L.(1998)Metacognitiveknowledgeandlanguagelearning.AppliedLinguistics19 (4), 515–537.
Wenden,A.L.andRubin,J.(eds)(1987)LearnerStrategiesinLanguageLearning.EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Young,D.J.andOxford,R.L.(1997)Agender-relatedanalysisofstrategiesusedtoprocesswritteninputinthenativelanguageandaforeignlanguage.AppliedLanguageLearning8 (1), 43–73.
Young,R.(1987)TheculturalcontextofTESOL–AreviewofresearchintoChineseclassrooms.RELC Journal18 (2), 15–30.
Zhang,L.J.(1999)Metacognition,cognitionandL2reading.UnpublishedPhDthesis,Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Zhang,L.J.(2000)MetacognitioninL2literacyacquisition:ThecaseoftenChinesetertiarystudentslearningtoreadEFL.InA.Brown(ed.)DevelopingMultiliteracies.Singapore:National Institute of Education.
Appendix 1: Subjects’ Background Questionnaire
(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)
Name_____Age_____Sex:Male____Female____Ethnic background______Languages literate in______
When did you begin to learn English? (Please tick one of the following)Before kindergarten____Kindergarten____Primary school____Junior middle school____Senior middle school____Others _____
(7)Would you please tell me yourNUM English Examinationscore?
My English score is_______________.
(8)Would you please tell me yourNUM Chinese Examinationscore?
My Chinese score is______________
(9)WouldyoupleasetellmeyourscoresontheCETBand-IIandBand-IVyou
have taken recently?
MyCETBand-IIscoreis_________,andmyCETBand-IVscoreis____________.
Appendix 2: Interview Prompts (translated from Chinese)
(1)WhatdoyouthinkisthemostimportantobjectiveinreadinginEnglishasa
foreignlanguage(EFL),e.g.learningEnglishgrammar,vocabulary,phonet-ics,graspingmainideaoftext,orsomethingelse?Basedonyourperception,whatdoyouthinkisthebiggestobstaclethatmakesyourEFLreadingdifficult?
(2)Doyouhaveadictionary?Ifso,isitanEnglish-Englishoran
288Language Awareness
(3)
(4)(5)(6)(7)
English-Chinesedictionary?Doyoulikeusingadictionaryduringreading?Canyoutellmewhenyouthinkyoushoulduseadictionaryandwhennot?WhenyouweregivenanEnglishtext,whatdidyoudofirst?Didyouhavealotofnewwords?Howdidyoudealwiththemgenerally?Frankly,howmanypercentdidyouunderstandofthetext?Whatwerethemostdifficultaspects?
Didyoupayattentiontothemainideasordetails?Didyouseehowthetextswere arranged, or their logical relations?
Whatdidyoudowhenyoumetalongsentence?Tellushowyouapproached the sentence?
HowdoyouevaluateyourEFLreadingabilityandyourChinesereadingability?
Didyourteacherteachyouanyreadingstrategies,skillsorthingslikethese?DoyouthinkthesestrategiesapplytoEFLreadingonlyorreadinginanyother languages?
Appendix 3: Coding Scheme for Data Reduction
Categories ofmetacognitiveknowledgePerson knowledgeCodesTypical DefinitionsExamplesPKTask knowledgeTKStrategic knowledgeSKLearner’s knowledge of‘My Chinese reading ability isoneself as a readervery strong, but my Englishproficiency is not as high, somy English reading ability ispoor’. (Yuanyuan, high scorer)Learner’s knowledge of‘The two texts we read justthe nature of thenow were different inreading taskdifficulty; one was easier thanthe other because the easierone had fewer new words’.(Qingchi, low scorer)Learner’s knowledge of‘If I have difficult sentences,strategies regarded aswords or expressions, I woulduseful forlike to translate them intocomprehensionChinese. This is beceusetranslation make everythingclearer and I have enoughconfidence in what I’m tryingto understand.’ (Ziran, lowscorer)
因篇幅问题不能全部显示，请点此查看更多更全内容